Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4863385" data-attributes="member: 3820">No, it isn't. But I think you can criticize a judgment call without criticizing the person, and even if not every comment in this thread has read that way, the inappropriate comments against the person don't invalidate the premise that a GM is capable of making a bad call. And I think it's reasonable to call for a narrative description for, say, a page 42 stunt. In some groups, the house rule may be that you have to describe your attacks even to use a basic power that you're expected to be able to use freely. But if a player chafes against the house rule, that's a fair position to hold, too. It basically comes down to whether or not you're asking for extra effort to accord a bonus to a player character, or to permit them to use one of the basic powers that the game expects them to be able to use freely. I'm fine with the former, but the latter's too stiff for me. "Plausiblity," in quotation marks — absolutely. I think some DMs can have a consistent bias toward "plausibility" that does not impede the game at all, and others can have a consistent bias toward "plausiblity" that messes everything up. If your definition of "plausible" includes the idea that martial characters can do fantastic things, for instance, you'll avoid the trap of being less even-handed to characters based on their power source.But that pretty much works like any potential bias. In small amounts it probably won't affect much, in larger amounts it's troublesome. I'll admit I'm fond of the idea that, say, if half-elves exist in a setting they're generally kind of poorly regarded outsiders rather than seen as the best of two worlds. But I would not want to extend that bias to the extent of functionally negating a half-elf's basic abilities like bonuses to Diplomacy. That's screwing the player over for picking "half-elf" — a poor move by any standard.But you see from how the context of your posts it's very easy to read your criticisms as game-specific in this thread, yes?I wouldn't call the DM "broken," but I'd call a literal reading of "push," as described here, as an incomplete understanding of the rules. Reskinning mechanics is a pretty basic GMing skill (absolutely required for, say, HERO System), and not allowing a character to reskin a push based on his opponent or even circumstances is an awfully iffy call. But no, I don't think the DM's broken. If he let the fighter punt a spider off a ledge, I'd say he's not being too harsh. I have problems figuring out how to knock a spider prone myself sometimes — but if I really wanted to limit that sort of thing, I'd probably design spiders that can make saving throws to avoid being knocked prone and use them sparingly. Knocking things prone is fun to do. I like my players to be able to use their toys. It's not like I can't threaten them if they do.</blockquote>

Verification